calculate_portfolio_return

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention error handling, data validation, or assumptions (e.g., inputs must be JSON arrays, returns as percentages). The example helps but lacks thoroughness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: two sentences plus a formula and example. The main purpose is stated first, and the rest provides additional context without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, clear formula, output schema exists), the description is sufficient. It covers the core calculation and input format. Minor gaps: no mention of limitations or edge cases, but overall complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains weights and returns as JSON arrays with an example, adding meaning beyond the schema's string type. However, it could be more explicit about the format (e.g., 'provide as JSON string').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Calculate expected portfolio return', a specific verb and resource. It includes a formula and example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_portfolio_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides the formula and example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_two_asset_portfolio or calculate_portfolio_risk. Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.